The Persuaders, directed by Barak Goodman and Rachel Dretzin, written by Barak Goodman & Douglas Rushkoff, released Nov 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is arguing that advertising isn't the truth, but a tool used to convince us in whatever ways possible into buying into a product or service, and this has implications on the public's understanding of what is really going on and affects US politics and culture. The film in general is about the effect of advertisement on our culture, the influence of it, and the rights of advertisement.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film is in chapters and goes through showing the advertising experience of an airline, to modern branding and advertising techniques, how this is blurring the line between advertising and content, to an expert on the science of selling, to a speech analyst who researches not on how to sell a good product but wording it so you give your audience what they want to hear, and then ends with how advertisers and politicians are using some of these new techniques to get at specific consumer types.
There is an emotional appeal, because Luntz, the political consultant to Republicans, says that going off of emotional reactions is a way to get people to hear what you want them to hear and view it in a way that they will like. Watching this part of the film you get disgusted, because I remember hearing the names of some of the legislation or groups mentioned, and you feel like the politicians themselves have hired spin doctors to get their message across. You feel as if you can't trust what anyone is saying, or being advertised as.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political?
The way in which the names of things are spun so that the public gets a more beneficial (to you, the labeler) notion of what it is creates confusion. Frank Luntz is in the film, he was a corporate and political campaign consultant, and shows how his work finds the language that is received well be Republicans, Democrats, or both; I imagine he also does his work to find the language that is well received to other groups as well.
Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
It becomes a point where advertising gets in the way of getting content across and just creates confusion. This is seen in the film when a company tries going beyond what they do and tries to create an image or a cultural text to their brand so that it can become vague to the consumers as to what they really do. This is also seen in labeling something so that it has a connotation to it such as "death tax" so that people will have a negative reaction to it without even really understanding or knowing why they do. It reminds me of those groups that purposefully name themselves something that tricks you into thinking they are something else, like lobbyist group Citizens United. You would think that Citizens United would lobby for the right for the public to have equal access and right to being involved in and supporting political campaigns on a level playing field, yet what they really support is money in politics which does the opposite.
Organizational? Educational?
This film supports the theory that non-stop advertisement can be unhealthy for people because it's a non-stop bombardment of a pitch, a persuasive argument, and it doesn't allow your mind to shut down and have some peace. I feel like this creates a concept interruption in your train of thought which makes it difficult to just focus and can hamper your ability to learn and get work done. It's as if the constant exposure to advertising is increasing cases of ADD.
Behavioral?
Advertising has become a new kind of urban warfare because of the competition among advertisers for publicity; prospectors for new space are everywhere and it has become a vicious circle of clutter that they create and then have to break through with an effort of more clutter. It doesn't make any sense.
Cultural?
'We are not an airline, we are song', this technique is to advertise the product meaning rather than what the product actually offers that makes it different, and this is an attempt to "create a culture that none other can copy". But this can backfire and can be confusing to the customer, the branding and outreach goes to a point where it doesn't make sense.
Advertisement has moved into "engaging in pseudo spiritual of marketing", like Nike wasn't just about sports but about your self esteem and power. This just ties into how our economy relies on consumerism and advertisement is there to keep pointing out to people that they need a product to fill this emptiness or fix that problem, when in reality what people need are to fix the relationships in their life and be happier engaging in interests with others.
Ecological?
"Once a culture gives in to advertisements, it is no longer a culture... the crap on tv functions to sell consumption."
This has environmental implications because endless consumerism isn't sustainable. Our society needs to shift our economy away from consumerism to understanding that humans don't crave materialistic things, but crave engaging relationships that are productive and are connected to our interests.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The fact that there exists a company that researches what kind of language and wording is best received by different groups in order to deceive them in a way by just changing the name of the bill or tax or organization, whatever they are researching for, is astounding to me. These people are being paid to be professional spin doctors and I believe that's very unproductive and almost destructive to the political and news system. I feel that if a group wants to get support from certain groups of people then they should rely on communicating clearly what their goals and intentions are, not on how to trick people into supporting you. I feel this causes more confusion than better communication and should almost be illegal, and maybe their time could be spent doing more productive things for society. I feel that there should be a line you don't cross when it comes to using marketing techniques in politics, because you're dealing with government and trying to better society as a whole and the spinning of words is playing dirty in my mind.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Rapaille's version of "code" reminds me of something that isn't real, but rather exists in the magical land in the Eragon books, where it's possible for an elf to observe someone else and understand them enough to be able to discover a person's true name, that truly describes them in all one description, and once you have spoken that true name you have control over the person
This makes me very skeptical, that this "code": works, because even in Eragon it is possible for someone to change enough that their true name changes as well, so the environment in which the product is in is changing and so will the demands that are expected of it, then the codes will change as well. I think the world is ever changing and not static enough for this.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This should address shoppers very well because they might find it interesting that they are being deceived on such a constant basis, it's almost as if they are constantly being under attack. I could imagine some people feeling annoyed and taking a second thought as to why they buy what they do and it could change how people decide to spend their money.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have been interested in hearing about the laws in which advertisers have to abide by when they are describing their product or service... I vaguely remember learning about quackery laws in middle school, but I'm not sure they really exist anymore. What parameters do the advertising agencies have to work within?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I was doing a presentation on behavioral economics and was discussing Frank Luntz's job to a classmate. I looked up what he's been up to, and I was nicely surprised to find in an online Newsmax article that he sold his share in the polling company "partly because he's fed up with politicians who don't tell people what they really mean." After reading this article I felt that Luntz genuinely wanted to use his skills for what he though was best for American society by helping out certain politicians and campaigns, but that he's getting disgusted with them and feels that he has failed. This is a completely different and more redeeming portrayal of the man than what was in The Persuaders.
Movie Notes
consumers are like roaches?
advertisers feel that if thye stop trying then consumers will forget about them
advertiser goal is to become the atmosphere to the point where the consumer won't try to be outside of advertisement, that its just part of the normal environment
sex and the city
absolut hunk - the drink was made specifically so that the episode could work around the advertisment and the drink, this was worked out between absolut and sex and they city
hip parties - opening party for a new airline, a sub of delta, but they won't mention delta, because song is going for the small airline look
song wanted to invent a new culture around airline - used a tool called a focus group - yielded a niche market of women's needs and interests for air travel
point/goal was to forge a real relation with women
they bring in a guy (Spague?)to give their ideas texture, to fill in the details, kind of like a stager, - his first job was to create song's first tv campaign - the commercials are a huge risk because they don't even address that it's an airline
what differentiaites something is that it creates
Bob Grafield - Columnist from Advertising Age
the people that are designing the advertisements are doing it for themselves, add to their portfolio, push a limit, connect on some different level, NOT for the people that are actually paying for
most people that try to make this vast connection with buyers have failed
"not product placement its the seemless integration of the product with the storyline" - yeah whatever - it's still product placement no matter how deceptive it is
Naomi Klein - Author - No Logo
engaging in pseudo spiritual of marketing - like nike wasn't just about sports but about your self esteem and power
companies would try to come up with a deeper meaning to identify their products with in order to give it an identity that consumers could relate to
in the end though, those porducts are not fulfilling those needs, so you have to come back and buy something else to fill that whole, helps to drive the consumerist society
Atkin - what drives people to join cults - simply about joining a brand or cult and attract the masses
saturns commercials were based on all time values of community
brands become more that just
Keith Rheinhard
scott donaton - editor - advertising age
said that advertising agencies are nervous, especially about the need to share models and work together in order to succeed, odn't want to lean against one another
kevin robert - used to be ceo of saatchi & saatchi worldwide
big idea is boldness
turn any idea into an object of devotion - calls his big ideas 'lovemarks' - creates loyalty beyond reason and is instantly recognizable as some icon in your heart
says how tide is more about being an enabler, a liberator, moving tide from the heart of laundry to the heart of the family
John Hayes - Cheif Market Advertsiser for American Express
losing faith in quick 30 second ads, more interested in the longer more connecting ads
turned to webisodes bc he knows their consumers want to be engaged and entertained
Rich Frank - former President Walt Disney Studios
if they were going to start off Friends (TV show) then it wouldn't have taken place in a generic coffee shop, it would've been a great advertising opportunity to have Starbucks in the show
webisodes
mark crispen miller - NYU... (didn't really give much credential here)
once a culture gives in to advertisements, it is no longer a culture
the crap on tv functions to sell consumption
strange world of market research - questioning the man about how he feels when eating bread
this did bring out an emotion - laughter and ridicule and a sense of sympothy towards the person because he and we have no idea how these questions make sense
Repi (? frenchman) - did his first work with autistic kids, had to decode their language, now in marketing and advertising to work with fortune 500 companies, like boeing and acura, to break the code on luxury
he wants to understand why people do what they do
he conducts a series of focus groups - on 3 stage psychic journey where he thinks the answers lie
asks them questions like what do you feel about luxury, what kinds of words do people use to sell you luxury
then gets them to the point where they don't understand how they are supposed to be participating
3rd hour = no chairs, hunting for the primal urges - the reptilian hot button
says that the code for SUV's was domination - so he told those companies to buff them up and to tint their windows
Class Discussion
- can you even still call this a culture if it's becoming so based on advertising
-a lot about film and entertainment becoming advertising
-what about news becoming advertising because it completely comes from the perspective of the business/product
-for a lot of time advertising was just about talking about and using the product and there has been a big shift from that to using the product as a symbol of something more, relating to something spiritual and to your identity.
Film Annotations
"The Persuaders" - Frontline - Douglas Rushcoff
1. Title, director and release year?
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
Legal?
Economic?
Technological?
Media and Informational?
Organizational?
Educational?
Behavioral?
Cultural?
Ecological?
- "Once a culture gives in to advertisements, it is no longer a culture... the crap on tv functions to sell consumption."
- This has environmental implications because endless consumerism isn't sustainable. Our society needs to shift our economy away from consumerism to understanding that humans don't crave materialistic things, but crave engaging relationships that are productive and are connected to our interests.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)Movie Notes
Class Discussion
- can you even still call this a culture if it's becoming so based on advertising
-a lot about film and entertainment becoming advertising
-what about news becoming advertising because it completely comes from the perspective of the business/product
-for a lot of time advertising was just about talking about and using the product and there has been a big shift from that to using the product as a symbol of something more, relating to something spiritual and to your identity.